National Space Policy: They Must be Planning Something Bad

This was linked in an excellent commentary on the topic at ThreatsWatch.

The usual. The present administration puts out an update of the National Space Policy so they must be planning to put weapons in space. The WaPo article pretty much spins it that way. The subtitle pretty much tells you where it's going to spin.

U.S. Says Shift Is Not A Step Toward Arms; Experts Say It Could Be

I wonder how they postured this when Clinton started the strong language regarding the US rights to use near orbit space? They point out that Clinton started it, but that Bush has pushed the door further open.

President Bush has signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."

Well, that's not exactly how it's phased. Try:

The United States considers space capabilities - including the ground and space segments and supporting links - vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;

The set up to the statement is important. Note that there is a very important bit there about preserving the rights of the US, which of course WaPo doesn't seem to include in their report. But, why have the whole statement when it wouldn't really support your contention that Bushitler is going to do something bad.

The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject.

"The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further."

Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."

Now I'd like to know why we would enter into negotiations on anything to do with the topic. Why don't we go into negotiations on whether we have the right to defend ourselves. It also goes along with the statement that the US won't agree to new international laws restricting the US' ability to use near space.

The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests;

The two go together as far as I'm concerned. By accepting limitations or prohibitions on what the US can do, because it will be the only country capable, is foolish. Almost like saying we can't use smart-bombs in war, even if we have the ability to create and use them.

I thing Steve at ThreatsWatch puts it better:

But the key to understanding the intent of the new space policy comes from a key sentence: "The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space." To take any other position towards international agreements would be to suggest that 18th-century England should have also then entered into an international agreement that restricted its dominant navy access to the seas because other navies were not as developed.

But, contrary to the coming commentary and criticism of the new National Space Policy - now set in motion by the Washington Post - opposing "new legal regimes" that would restrict our activities is absolutely not "a step toward arms."

Refusing to have your hands tied behind your back is not the same as the intent to punch someone in the face.

Nicely put.

You can read the Declassified portions of the National Space Policy here. [pdf warning]